See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288811202

Wood as a construction material: Comparison of different construction types

for residential building using the analytic hierarchy process

Article  in  Wood Research · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

18 5,430

2 authors:

Manja Kitek Kuzman Petra Grošelj

University of Ljubljana University of Ljubljana
65 PUBLICATIONS   562 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   404 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Engineered Wood Products View project

The influence of glass facades on the sustainability of buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Petra Grošelj on 14 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

WOOD RESEARCH
57 (4): 2012
591-600

WOOD AS A CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL: COMPARISON

OF DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION TYPES FOR
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING USING THE ANALYTIC
HIERARCHY PROCESS

Manja Kitek Kuzman, Petra Grošelj

University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Wood Science
and Technology
Ljubljana, Slovenia

(Received April 2011)

ABSTRACT

Considering the growing importance of energy-efficient building methods, timber

construction will play an increasingly important role in the future. In order to determine advantages
and disadvantages of using wood as a leading constructional material, different construction types
were compared: solid wood, wood-frame, concrete, brick, and steel construction. To quantify
the comparisons the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used. AHP enables the inclusion
of various parameters, including descriptive ones, in a mathematical model through which the
importance of each construction criterion forming part of the system can be calculated in order
to provide objective decisions for construction. Analysis revealed that the top ranked criteria in
decision-making include quality of life, construction cost and depreciation costs. On comparing
different construction types the wood-frame construction was considered as the most suitable
option for residential building.

KEYWORDS: Wood construction, analytic hierarchy process, building criteria, residential

building.

INTRODUCTION

Today, the construction of wooden prefabricated residential units is supported by strong

arguments; innovations and improvements introduced in the early 1980s helped promote wooden
prefabricated residential construction around the world. The following changes are the most
important: transition from on-site construction to industrial prefabrication, transition from stick-

591
WOOD RESEARCH

building to modular construction, increased use of glued lumber in construction, development

of environmentally friendly solutions for wood protection (Humar et al. 2004), and the shift
from small to large panel system construction. The present times, characterized by specific
circumstances in the sphere of climate change, witness an intensive focus of architect engineers,
construction engineers, and wood-technology engineers on searching for ecological solutions
and construction methods that would allow for greater energy efficiency and, consequently, for
a reduced environmental burden. The choice of a construction material is the most important
decision and it has long term consequences for the owner of the structure (Johnson 1990). The
external environmental impact of building depends on the materials used and the energy sources
utilized (Assefa et al. 2010). Timber as a construction material is positively associated with
well-being, aesthetic and eco-friendliness, which are important factors in the choice of a certain
building construction mode, however these attributes are not sufficient on their own to trigger
the choice of timber as a construction material (Gold and Rubik 2008). The advantages of using
more timber materials with lower embodied global warming potential, embodied carbon, and
realistic end-of-life disposal options, position timber as the building material with the lowest
carbon footprint (John et al. 2010).
The abovementioned and also some other criteria affect the selection of one assembly
construction versus the other. The aim of this study is to identify the criteria that have a
particularly strong influence on the choice of the material. The second objective is to evaluate
different types of constructions for the residential building regarding the selected criteria. We
compared solid wood, wood frame, concrete, brick, and steel frame construction. To evaluate
the impact of various wide-ranging criteria several multiple criteria decision making (MCDM)
models have been developed such as the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory MAUT (Brugha, 2004),
the Simplified Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (the SMART method) (Lootsma, 1996). The
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty 1980) seems to be appropriate tool for our purpose.
The MCDM models have been already used in the field of wood technology and construction
building. Oblak et al. (2008) used a computer program DEXi for development of qualitative
multi-attribute decision model for stock management in a wood-industry company. A procedure
for multi-criteria selection of building assemblies was used for a computer tool for selecting the
best combination of building assemblies for each particular design situation (Nassar et al. 2003).
Frenette et al. (2008) evaluated light-frame wood wall assemblies presenting a methodology for
quantitative evaluation of a set of performance characteristics.
The AHP has been widely used in applications. Smith et al. (1995) analyzed factors affecting
the adoption of timber as a bridge material, where more then 20 criteria were accounted. Lipušček
et al. (2003) used the AHP model for classifying wood products according to the environment
burdening during the process of manufacturing. Chauhan et al. (2008) showed the application of
AHP as a tool used in the housing sector to help in decision making. Yang et al. (2010) used the
AHP model for the energy efficiency assessment in residential building. The application of the
AHP in the multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems was performed
by Wong and Li (2006). However the AHP or other MCDM models for ranking construction
material for building has not been published so far.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The analytic hierarchy process

The AHP method enables combining tangible and intangible and quantification of empirical

592
 Vol. 57 (4): 2012

data and subjective judgments. The method works at three levels: (1) Level one is the creation of
a decision tree by defining key criteria that influence the goal of the problem. The criteria can
branch into several subcriteria, down to the final level of alternatives. Alternatives are concrete
possibilities, the objects of decision-making. (2) Level two are paired comparisons between two
objectives at the same level with regard to the parent element at the next higher level. (3) The
final level, level three, is the calculation of the priorities of the elements of the hierarchy and
the synthesis of these results to determine an overall outcome. Then the analysis of the results is
performed (Saaty 1994).
The level two is the heart of the AHP method. For paired comparisons a fundamental scale
of the AHP (Saaty 1994), from 1 to 9 is used (Tab. 1).

Tab. 1: The fundamental scale of the AHP (Saaty 1994).

Value aij Description

1 Criteria i and j are equally important.
3 Criterion i is slightly more important than criterion j.
5 Criterion i is much more important than criterion j.
7 Criterion i is proved to be more important than criterion j.
9 Criterion i is absolutely more important than criterion j.
2, 4, 6, 8 Middle values

A reciprocal value is assigned to the inverse comparison, i. e. aij = 1/ aij. Comparisons

between individual objectives are gathered in a comparison matrix A.
For deriving priorities Saaty (1980) presented the eigenvector method, where according to
the comparison matrix A the priority vector w = (w1,..., wn) is obtained by solving the equation:
Aw = ʎmaxw, where ʎ max is the largest eigenvalue of matrix A.
For each comparison matrix A consistency ratio is computed in order to measure the
consistency among the paired comparisons:

where: - the consistency index and n - the order of matrix A and RI - average

random consistency index computed by Forman (1990). The consistency ratio CR < 0.1 is
considered acceptable. Otherwise, the matrix results are inconsistent and the decision maker
should revise his judgments.
In the group case there are two basic aggregating methods: the aggregation of individual
judgments and the aggregation of individual priorities (Forman and Peniwati 1998). Individual
judgments aijk , k=1,…,m for m decision makers should be aggregated into group judgment aij group
using the geometric mean method

(1)

593
WOOD RESEARCH

Group judgments aijgroup - gathered in the group comparison matrix Agroup. The group
priority vector is obtained from Agroup by the eigenvector method. Geometric mean method is the
only appropriate method for aggregation of individual judgments, as it preserves the reciprocal
property (Aczel and Saaty 1983). It is suitable when the decision makers have similar objectives
and their judgments are homogenous (Saaty and Vargas 2007). If there are different interests or
different knowledge foundations in the group, the aggregation of individual priorities should be
used. It is important to reach a consensus on final priorities. A consensus iterative model whose
mathematical foundations are based on the philosophy of negotiations has been developed by
Lehrer and Wagner (1981) and adopted for AHP by Regan et al. (2006).
The iterative process starts with the initial priority vectors 0wk = (0w1k ,...,0wnk)T of k=1,…,m
decision makers. They are modified according to the level of respect assigned to the other decision
makers. The weights of respect vijs are calculated on the base of the differences between the
priorities.

(2)

They are written in the matrices of weights of respect Vs = (vsij)mxm. Let 0Ps denote the
vector of priorities of all decision makers of the criterion s: 0Ps = (0w1s,...,0wms)T. The revised
priorities of the criterion s after the first round of aggregation result in 1Ps = Vs0Ps = (1w1s,...,1wms)T.
The aggregation in the next steps is repeated with the same weights of respect: rPs = (Vs)r 0Ps. As
r approaches infinity, the improved priorities of the criterion s converge towards the consensual
priority wS , which is equal for all decision makers. Convergence is guaranteed (Lehrer and
Wagner 1981) and in practice, it is attained in a few steps.

The decision tree for the selection of building construction

The components of the decision tree for our problem are goal, criteria, and alternatives
(Fig. 1). The goal of our problem is to evaluate different types of building construction.

Fig. 1: The decision tree for choosing the most appropriate type of construction for a residential building.

There are the possible alternatives: Steel-frame construction, solid wood construction, wood
frame construction, concrete construction, and brick construction. Which of these alternatives is
the most suitable for the residential type of construction? The answer can be obtained by assessing

594
 Vol. 57 (4): 2012

the criteria that present the core of the decision tree. The selection of the criteria was conducted
using the Delphi method (Gupta and Clarke 1996), which envisages several rounds of the
process. In the first round, experts selected eighteen most important construction criteria: quality
of living, design, energy efficiency, fire safety, construction time, material embodied energy,
life time, reliability, construction costs, depreciation costs, mechanical resistant and stability,
national building promotion, resistance to external factors, prefabrication, local disposability of
material, global raw material price movement, advertising effects. In the second round, nine out
of eighteen most important criteria were selected: Quality of living, design, energy efficiency,
material embodied energy, fire safety, construction time, construction costs, depreciation costs,
mechanical resistance and stability. Three out of nine criteria (mechanical resistance and stability,
fire safety and energy efficiency) need to be fulfilled already by the construction standards and
are therefore omitted from construction ranking. The remaining criteria applied in construction
ranking are shown on Fig. 1.

Survey on paired comparisons of the criteria

Based on the decision tree, a questionnaire with paired comparisons of construction criteria
with regard to the goal was composed. We desired to establish which criterion is more important
for a residential type of construction and how much more. Eleven surveys were conducted.
The research included only experts i.e. architect engineers, construction engineers, and wood-
technology engineers from several countries. The transfer of expert knowledge into the model
increased the credibility of the final model. The general public was purposely not included in the
survey of paired comparisons because the model is based solely on expert criteria.

Tab. 2: An example of a result of paired comparisons.

Compared criteria Result

1. Quality of Living : Construction Costs 3:1
2. Quality of Living : Construction Time 7:1
3. Quality of Living : Depreciation Costs 4:1
4. Quality of Living : Design 3:1
5. Quality of Living : Embodied Energy 3:1

An example of the result of paired comparisons is presented in Tab. 2. If the responses of

the expert were not of acceptable consistency, the expert was assembled once more to assess his
judgments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Priorities of the selected criteria

After the experts’ opinions had been collected, we joined them by the experts’ areas:
architecture, construction, and wood-technology. It is expected that the experts from the same
field have homogenous judgments. This justifies the use of geometric mean method (1). The
group judgments were gathered in the group comparison matrices. Following the eigenvector
method, priority vectors for six selected criteria for three areas’ comparison matrices were
calculated. The final group priorities were obtained by applying the consensus model (2) to the
three areas’ priorities vectors. The group priorities for the criteria are in Tab. 3.
595
WOOD RESEARCH

Tab. 3: Priorities and ranking of building criteria for residential building.

Wood
Architect Construction
technology Consensus Rank
engineers engineers
engineers
Quality of Life 0.31 0.33 0.38 0.34 1
Construction Costs 0.25 0.14 0.15 0.18 2
Construction Time 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.07 6
Depreciation Costs 0.19 0.12 0.20 0.17 3
Design 0.11 0.25 0.09 0.15 4
Embodied Energy 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.09 5

The criteria quality of living is ranked highest and is stepping out (w = 0.34). The second
place goes to the construction costs (w = 0.18), which is followed by the criterion of deprecation
costs (w = 0.17) and design (w = 0.15). The criterion of embodied energy is ranked fifth (w = 0.09)
and the construction time (w = 0.07) is ranked last.

Fig. 2: Comparison of obtained priorities of the criteria in terms of team of experts who took part in the
survey.

The comparison between the responses of the expert groups that participated in the survey
(i.e., architect engineers, construction engineers, and wood-technology engineers) is carried out
(Fig. 2). The group of architect engineers stood out among the experts, giving a higher assessment
to the factor of Design in comparison to the others.

Assessment of Alternatives with Each Criterions

Five different types of construction were addressed in the research (alternatives in the
decision tree): Solid wood, wood frame, concrete, brick, and steel frame construction. Each type
of construction was assessed separately for each of the six key criteria of building construction.
The weighting coefficients of the construction costs criterion were selected on the basis of
average costs per square meter of the selected wall types. Depreciation costs were assessed based
on the relation between the service life of the material and construction costs. Factors such as
prefabrication level, drying, transport, knowledge, and experience in using elements affected
596
 Vol. 57 (4): 2012

the estimate of the construction time criterion. Quality of living was assessed based on the
comfort, health and psychological factors. The weighting coefficients for the construction design
criterion were estimated based on the indicators, such as functionality, span possibility, multistory
construction, system solutions, and surface efficiency, and were selected on the basis of the
survey. Embodied energy in building materials represents the non-renewable energy consumed
in the acquisition of raw materials, their processing, manufacturing, transportation to site, and
construction – it represents the relationship between building materials, construction processes,
and their environmental impacts. It was defined as the commercial energy that was used in the
process of making a product, bringing it to the market, and disposing of it (cradle to cradle) (John
et al. 2010).

Results of the Decision Tree

The decision tree combines weights of importance for each criterion and alternative
separately. The priorities of each construction type (alternative) were obtained through the matrix
multiplication of values of alternatives and the criterion vector of priorities. Fig. 3 presents the
decision tree for residential construction, showing that wood frame construction obtained the
highest priority, whereas steel construction scored the least.

Fig. 3: The decision tree for residential building, the priorities of criteria, the priorities of alternatives
with regard to the criteria and the final priorities of alternatives.

Fig. 4: The final priorities of different types of construction for residential construction.

597
WOOD RESEARCH

The final priorities of different types of construction are shown on Fig. 4. Priority of the
wood frame construction is the highest (w = 0.26) and is followed by the solid wood construction
(w = 0.22), while the concrete and brick construction almost shared the third place (w = 0.20,
w = 0.19). The steel frame construction (w = 0.13) was scored as last. The result was expected,
because the positive trend towards low carbon wooden construction is an important starting
point, not only for low-energy, but also for low-emission building with exceptional health and
safety aspects. Using more timber in construction can reduce the carbon footprint of the building.

CONCLUSIONS

Construction building is a complex and multidisciplinary field. The decisions are influenced
by various parameters like economic, type of construction, design, ecology etc. To rationalize
decision process and to reveal the critical quality attributes application of mathematical models
should be considered. Bridging over several fields of expertise, a multicriteria analysis process
has the advantage of considering a number of these performance criteria simultaneously. It also
brings the possibility of weighting the various criteria in respect of a specific design and building
context.
Our case study showed the application of the AHP method for analyzing the decision criteria
related to the residential buildings. Analysis revealed that the top ranked criteria in decision-
making are besides load capacity, fire safety and energy efficiency obviously quality of life,
construction cost and depreciation costs. Comparing different construction types the wood-frame
construction was considered as the most suitable for residential building of various standards.
Being a natural raw material, timber represents one of the best choices for energy efficient
construction, since it also functions as a good thermal insulator, has good mechanical properties,
and ensures a comfortable indoor living climate. It should be noted that very few buildings are
made entirely out of a single material. Good, sensible building construction should combine the
use of appropriate materials and technology.
In the future, such analysis should help professionals make a clearer choice regarding
further optimizing and developing particular aspect of the building process, by giving them the
possibility of comparing different alternatives on a common and comprehensive basis. Moreover,
it can identify weak and strong aspects of wood building and thus it can give a new dimension to
the promotion and marketing of wood buildings by allowing a better appreciation of the impact of
individual parameters on other performance criteria. The findings of such models can be further
integrated into strategies to increase the usage of timber as a construction material.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study was a part of the Research Program “Wood and lignocellulosic materials”
supported by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of
Slovenia.

598
 Vol. 57 (4): 2012

REFERENCES

1. Aczel, J., Saaty, T.L., 1983: Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. Journal of
Mathematical Psychology 27(1): 93-102.
2. Assefa, G., Glaumann, M., Malmqvist, T., Eriksson, O., 2010: Quality versus impact:
Comparing the environmental efficiency of building properties using the EcoEffect tool.
Building and Environment 45(5): 1095-1103.
3. Brugha, C.M., 2004: Phased multicriteria preference finding. European Journal of
Operational Research 158(2): 308–316.
4. Chauhan, K.A., Shah, C.N., Rao, V.R., 2008: The analytic hierarchy process as a decision-
support system in the housing sector: A case study. World Applied Sciences Journal 3(4):
609-613.
5. Forman, E.H., 1990: Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices.
European Journal of Operational Research 48(1): 153-155.
6. Forman, E., Peniwati, K., 1998: Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the
analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 108(1): 165-169.
7. Frenette, C.D., Derome, D., Beauregard, R., Salenikovich, A., 2008: Identification of
multiple criteria for the evaluation of light-frame wood wall assemblies. Journal of Building
Performance Simulation 1(4): 221-236.
8. Gold, S., Rubik, F., 2009: Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material
and towards timber frame houses-selected findings of a representative survey among the
German population. Journal of Cleaner Production 17: 303-309.
9. Gupta, U.G., Clarke, R.E., 1996: Theory and applications of the Delphi Technique: A
bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53(2): 185-211.
10. Humar, M., Pohleven, F., Amartey, S.A., Šentjurc, M., 2004: Efficacy of CCA and
Tanalith E treated pine fence to fungal decay after ten years in service. Wood Research
49(1): 13-20.
11. John, S., Perez, N., Buchanan, A.H., 2010: The carbon footprint of multi-story timber
building compared with conventional materials. World conference on timber engineering
(WCTE 2010), 20-24 Jun 2010, Riva del Garda, Italy, 9 pp.
12. Johnson, K., 1990: Timber bridge design, engineering and construction manual. 4th ed.
Wheeler Consolidated. St. Louse Park, MN, 1000 pp.
13. Lehrer, K., Wagner, C., 1981: Rational consensus in science and society. D. Reidel. Publ.
Co. Dordrecht, 169 pp.
14. Lipušček, I., Oblak, L., Stirn, L.Z., 2003: Model for classifying wood products according to
environment burdening during the process of manufacturing. Wood Research 48(4): 43-54.
15. Nassar, K., Thabet, W., Beliveau, Y., 2003: A procedure for multi-criteria selection of
building assemblies. Automation in Construction 12(5): 543-560.
16. Lootsma, F.A., 1996: A model for the relative importance of the criteria in the Multiplicative
AHP and SMART. European Journal of Operational Research 94(3): 467-476.
17. Oblak, L., Jelačić, D., Motik, D., Grladinović, T., 2008: A model for stock management in
a wood-industry company. Wood Research 53(1): 105-118.
18. Regan, H.M., Colyvan, M., Markovchick-Nicholls, L., 2006: A formal model for consensus
and negotiation in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management
80(2): 167-176.
19. Saaty, T.L., 1980: The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource
allocation. New York, London: McGraw-Hill International Book Co, 287 pp.

599
 WOOD RESEARCH

20. Saaty, T.L., 1994: Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic
hierarchy process. Pittsburgh, RWS Publications, 527 pp.
21. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 2007: Dispersion of group judgments. Mathematical and
Computer Modeling 46(7/8): 918-925.
22. Smith, R., Bush, J.R., Schmoldt, L.D., 1995: A hierarchical model and analysis of factors
affecting the adoption of timber as a bridge material. Wood and Fiber Science 27(3): 225-
238.
23. Yang, Y., Li, B., Yao, R., 2010: A method of identifying weighting indicators of energy
efficiency assessment in Chinese residential buildings. Energy Policy 38(12): 7687-7697.
24. Wong, J., Li, H., 2006: Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-
criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Building and Environment
43(1): 108-125.

Manja Kitek Kuzman, Petra Grošelj

University of Ljubljana
Biotechnical Faculty
Department of Wood Science and Technology
Jamnikarjeva 101
Si-1000 Ljubljana
Slovenia
Phone: +386 25 72 297
Corresponding author: manja.kuzman@bf.uni-lj.si

600

View publication stats